Aalborg Universitet

Celebrating the Tenth Networked Learning Conference

Looking Back and Moving Forward

de Laat, Maarten; Ryberg, Thomas

Published in:Networked Learning - reflections and challenges

DOI (link to publication from Publisher):10.1007/978-3-319-74857-3_1

Publication date:2018

Document VersionAccepted author manuscript, peer reviewed version

Link to publication from Aalborg University

Citation for published version (APA):de Laat, M., & Ryberg, T. (2018). Celebrating the Tenth Networked Learning Conference: Looking Back andMoving Forward. In N. Bonderup Dohn, S. Cranmer, J-A. Sime, M. de Laat, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), NetworkedLearning - reflections and challenges (pp. 1-20). Springer. Research in Networked Learninghttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74857-3_1

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

? Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. ? You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain ? You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at vbn@aub.aau.dk providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from vbn.aau.dk on: October 26, 2020

Celebrating the 10th Networked Learning

Conference: Looking Back and Moving

Forward

Maarten de Laat & Thomas Ryberg

To celebrate the 10th anniversary of the biennial Networked Learning

Conference the conference chairs Maarten de Laat and Thomas Ryberg

presented an overview of emerging and trending themes that have featured

at the conference series over the years. The selection of topics and trends

was based on semantic analysis drawing on a dataset that comprised the

full conference proceedings published from 1998 - 2016. The statistical

2

material underpinning the presented graphs were created using the text-

and data-mining tool Voyant Tools1. Voyant Tools is an open source web-

based text reading and analysis environment where all PDF-versions of the

conference proceedings were uploaded and processed. Voyant Tools can -

amongst other things - be used to count for example how many times par-

ticular words or phrases occur in a body of text. In the analysis presented

in this chapter each conference proceeding featured as a data point creating

a timeline presentation showing the development or decline of networked

Learning research trends over the years.

In this introduction we have expanded the trend analysis initially presented

at the Networked Learning Conference held in 2016 in Lancaster and dis-

cuss the findings we see from analysing the textual material. We will re-

flect on the limitations of our approach, the value and biases of statistical

treatment of word occurrences, and what we can meaningfully draw from

such analyses. For example our analysis suffer from an inability to mean-

ingfully explore the concept of ‘networked learning’ itself as it occurs so

often in the proceedings (e.g. in headers and footers) that it is rendered

meaningless. Similarly it proved difficult to generate socio-graphs to map

social interaction or author networks based on paper publications around

the identified topics.

In this chapter we present our findings grouped into a number of themes,

representing the areas in which Networked Learning has had most traction.

1 https://voyant-tools.org/

3

We start with theoretical perspectives that have been used to understand

and frame networked learning practices. We then reflect on the dominant

research methods that have been used, followed by various modes of deliv-

ery or designing for networked learning and we wrap it up with a presenta-

tion of the technological devices that have dominated networked learning

research over the years. Within each of these themes we discuss in more

depth how we have approached the analysis and our rationale for the

words chosen where after we provide an analysis and reflection and ponder

what the findings might suggest in terms of moving forward.

As an initial caveat we should say that we do not ourselves consider our

analysis an authoritarian analysis or solid, sturdy anchoring point from

which we can say that we have attained a ‘god’s eye’ overview of the past

and future of networked learning. We see the analysis as a first attempt to

provide a preliminary analysis of trends in a manner that we do not think

has previously been attempted within networked learning. In the spirit of

recognising the limitations and preliminary nature of this analysis and ap-

proach we lay our material open for others to explore as open data sets, so

that other researchers - within or outside the networked learning commu-

nity - can consult and work with the data to debate, dismiss or enrich the

findings of our analysis. Thus, we see the analysis as a first preliminary at-

tempt to understand the field of networked learning through the lenses and

techniques of data-mining and textual analysis of corpora.

The field of Networked Learning

Networked learning is learning in which information and communications

technology (ICT) is used to promote connections: between one learner and

4

other learners, between learners and tutors; between a learning community

and its learning resources. (Goodyear

et al. 2004, p. 1)

The quote above is the often-used definition for networked learning as pro-

posed initially by Goodyear et al. (2004). It stresses the importance of both

human and digitally mediated interactions through the notion of ‘connec-

tions’, and underlines that interactions with technologies and resources in

isolation are not sufficient to constitute networked learning.

At the first Networked Learning Conference in 1998 the aim was to bring

networked learning research and praxis together and there was a strong fo-

cus on lifelong learning, professional development and implications for ed-

ucational theory and the current paradigm shift from traditional learning to

distributed and distance learning (Banks, Graebner & McConnell, 1998) -

in fact the proceedings were titled ‘Networked Lifelong Learning’. This

early broad orientation of networked learning is visible in figure 1 below,

but over the years it has become clear that a lot of the research has been

driven by exploring particularly the potential of networked learning for

higher education.

5

Figure 1: Focus of Networked Learning Research

In figure 1 one can see how frequently the words ‘higher education’, ‘pro-

fessional development’, and ‘lifelong learning’ have been used in the net-

worked learning conference papers over the years. From this, it becomes

quite clear that the predominant focus has developed to become the area of

Higher Education. The attention to lifelong learning and professional de-

velopment has always been present with a pronounced peak in 2012 for

‘professional development’ when the conference was hosted in Maastricht

in the Netherlands. The interest in lifelong learning seems to be gradually

fading, which perhaps is part of a wider trend, as the same pattern holds

true if one looks up ‘lifelong learning’ in Google Trends (from 2004 to

2017 there is a decline in interest from index 100 to approximately 30).

6

From the beginning of the conference series there was a very broad under-

standing of networked learning, and the space of possibilities for net-

worked learning was seen as vast2 (Jones et al., 2001). This is still true to-

day, as illustrated in Goodyear, Carvalho & De Laat (2016) where a

number of cases from different domains are presented. But it is also clear

that the conference series bends strongly towards higher education and

professional development, over for example primary or secondary educa-

tion or informal learning (these were all terms we searched for, but they re-

turned only a few results). This, of course, is hardly surprising as the con-

ference has always been understood and promoted as a conference

addressing higher education, professional development and lifelong learn-

ing (but has always been open to incorporating papers lying outside of this

scope. While we were not surprised, that higher education features promi-

nently over the years, we were a bit surprised to see the comparatively

smaller uptake in ‘professional development’. This, as we believe it will

increasingly become an area of political interest and one where the field of

networked learning has a lot to contribute to in terms of critical, dialogical

and collaborative perspectives over a more individualised trajectory of mi-

cro-degrees.

With the domain of inquiry being firmly settled within higher education

and to some extend professional development, we were also interested in

looking further into what constitutes the field of networked learning more

broadly. We have therefore made searches into particular neighbouring re-

search fields such as Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL), Computer

2 http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/definition.htm

7

Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), Learning Analytics and

Knowledge (LAK), and more broadly Information and Communication

Technology (ICT) and e-learning. The results can be seen from Figure 2.

Figure 2: Related areas of research

What is immediately notable from Figure 2 is the gradual rise of interest in

the term ICT with a steep decline in 2012 and 2014. This, most likely, does

not suggest that the interest in ICT’s have waned, but probably that the

term ICT is gradually and more broadly being replaced by other terms e.g.

digital technologies. Again a Google Trends search for ICT does seem to

confirm that this term is losing traction over the years from 2004 till now.

8

Quite interestingly the term ‘e-learning’ seems to live a bumpy life, peak-

ing at some conferences (2004, 2008 & 2010) and being almost non-exist-

ing at other times (2000, 2006, 2012). There is no immediate good expla-

nation for this, other than the term ‘e-learning’ in general is a broader (and

less precise) term than networked learning, which would therefore often be

the term chosen at NL-conferences over e-learning.

We further queried into specific fields of research, such as TEL, CSCL and

Learning Analytics. In general, as we shall return to in the concluding

chapter, the area of learning analytics seems little explored within the net-

worked learning community, which does not seem to reflect a wider trend

within educational technology. The term had a small surge in 2012 and has

been explored further - though to a lesser degree - in 2014 & 2016. Com-

paring to Google Trends this is markedly different from the broader inter-

est, as since 2012 the interest in Learning Analytics has risen (from index

11 in 2012 to nearing a 100 in 2017). In contrast the use of the term TEL

has risen since 2008 in the NL conferences, and it seems that this is gener-

ally a term that has become increasingly popular amongst national govern-

ments, the EU and other funders (which has also provoked criticism of the

term e.g. (Bayne, 2015, Hayes, 2016)). Finally, we queried into the term

CSCL, which has gathered a relatively stable amount of interest within

networked learning over time, though with a slight decline in the recent

years. As argued by Jones, Ryberg and De Laat (2015) there are strong

overlaps between CSCL and networked learning, as well as some areas

where they follow different paths:

9

“Networked learning has a close relationship with computer-supported col-

laborative learning

(CSCL), in that both fields have a keen interest in collaborative orchestra-

tions of learning. However, CSCL tends to focus on smaller groups, in-

cluding dyads, whereas networked learning extends to medium- to large-

scale groupings. Also CSCL has a strong connection with formal learning

in education, whereas networked learning has been picked up in a wider

context, for example, lifelong learning, professional development, and or-

ganizational learning.” (Jones, Ryberg & de Laat, 2015, p. 2)

CSCL when compared to networked learning has a stronger anchorage in

education more generally including a strong presence in primary and sec-

ondary schools, whereas networked learning, as illustrated in figure 1, ex-

tends further into professional development and lifelong learning; although

this to a lesser degree than we had actually expected (see figure 1).

Theoretical perspectives - Theory and focus of NL research

Within the area of networked learning it seems particularly worthwhile to

understand what theoretical perspectives are underpinning ideas of net-

worked learning. As several authors have explored Networked Learning is

not a unison theoretical perspective, but rather is a theoretical perspective

that is composed by or underpinned by a range of other theoretical out-

looks (Hodgson, De Laat, McConnell, & Ryberg, 2014, Jones, 2015,

Jones, Ryberg & De Laat, 2015).

10

In analysing these trends it is important to understand that the mention in a

paper of a theoretical perspective does not necessarily translate to a posi-

tive stance towards or preference for that theory. Just as much as citation

counts in isolation do not show that an author or perspective is agreed

upon, popular or found worthwhile. For example, one might find - within

the networked learning literature - quite a few references to Prensky

(2001), but the majority of those might be critical to or debate the notions

of ‘digital natives’ proposed initially by Prensky (e.g. Bennett, Maton &

Kervin, 2008; Kennedy et al., 2008). Likewise, people might mention ac-

tivity theory, but disagree with or dismiss it. Therefore, what follows from

the trends analysis cannot, in isolation, be taken to mean that authors sub-

scribe to the theory. Establishing just an approximation of positivity or

negativity towards the theory mentioned would require a substantially

more complex and detailed data-mining technique looking e.g. for adjacent

words in sentences that could unearth positive or negative stances. This

goes far beyond our capabilities and intentions, so we should remind the

reader that the trend mapping merely signals attention/awareness. How-

ever, that a theory merits attention and is on the radar of the community is

also an important measure of its impact on a community, whether for good

or bad, it does show that it is or has been a topic of interest.

We should also mention that different words may often be used for the

same theory. For example some differ between social constructivism and

constructivism whereas others take it for the same. Likewise the term so-

cial constructionism is a term that has also featured in the conference over

the years, and one that should not be confused with constructionism. An-

other term that is frequently used in this context is social constructivism.

11

Both terms follow a similar curve over the years (see figure 3 below). Alt-

hough these terms have a slight different meaning they have also been

used in substitution of one another.

Figure 3: Social constructivism and social constructionism

Actor-Network-Theory might be spelled in a number of ways, with or

without hyphens, and might more recently be phrased as a sociomaterial

perspective (or perhaps socio-material or social material) and for example

activity theory could also be referred to as socio-cultural, sociocultural or

cultural historical perspective. These ambiguities or even little differences

in spellings (dash or no-dash) make it difficult to assess the occurrence of a

theoretical perspective.

12

In the following we discuss the selection of the overall concepts we have

chosen to include. The main concepts we have explored are: Cognitivism,

Constructivism, Communities of Practice, Social Learning, Actor-Network

Theory, and Activity theory.

While, from an experiential point of view, we did not expect there would

be strong mentions of ‘cognitivism’ we included this perspective neverthe-

less, as it is often positioned as an overarching learning theoretical per-

spective together with behaviourism and constructivism (Jones, 2015). As

networked learning is more often associated with relational, social and

non-dualists views of learning we expected that cognitivism, understood as

particularly associated with cognitive science/psychology or cognitive the-

ory would be a more fringe perspective within networked learning. This is

not to say that a cognitive perspective is strange to networked learning, in-

deed Peter Goodyear (e.g. 2002) has explored this topic extensively, and in

Chapter 2 by Gale Parchoma in this volume she explores the notion of dis-

tributed cognition. However, the work grounded in cognitive science/cog-

nitive psychology seems less pronounced in Networked Learning as Jones

puts it:

“For networked learning the influence of cognitivism

has been limited but there are some elements that have

a continuing relevance. Firstly there is a concern with

the thinking and intentions of learners. Networked

learning still has an interest in what happens in the

brain and an interest in what can be called the mind

13

(Goodyear and Carvalho 2014 ; Ellis and Goodyear

2010 ).” (Jones, 2015, p. 52)

The notion of constructivism was included as it is often positioned as an

overarching learning theoretical perspective along with e.g. behaviourism

and cognitivism. It is a term that has broad meanings, but usually refers to

the idea that knowledge is constructed by the learners, rather than being

transmitted to the learner by e.g. a teacher:

“The central ideas of constructivism are that

knowledge is created by people, either as individuals

or as part of groups, through experiencing the world

and reflecting upon those experiences. In this view

knowledge is constructed by the knower and as a con-

sequence it does not exist externally and independently

of the knower(s) and knowledge cannot simply be

transmitted and received.” (Jones, 2015, p. 52-53)

Under the hood of constructivism, however, a number of different theories

are often subsumed e.g. Piaget and Vygotsky, as well as ideas such as radi-

cal constructivism and constructionism. So, constructivism is a rather

broad term that can cover quite a spectrum of different meanings. Finally,

we have added three theoretical frameworks that we know/assumed from

experience might be widely adopted (activity theory, actor network theory

and community of practice), as well as the broader term ‘social learning’.

14

Figure 4: Theoretical perspectives within networked learning

Looking at the graph (figure 4) we see that the broad label of ‘constructiv-

ism’ has generally featured quite extensively throughout the years, with a

steep rise around 2002, but seems to have gradually lost popularity in the

recent years (from 2010 until now). Similarly, the notion of community of

practice has been extensively popular and rising for every conference

peaking at 2010, whereafter the term seems to decrease in popularity quite

significantly from 2010 and onwards. Similarly, it seems that the notion of

social learning follows a similar pattern to that of ‘communities of prac-

tice’. This could be explained by the fact that since 2004 Wenger began

more intensively to refer to Communities of Practice (CoPs) as a ‘social

theory of learning’. This term was mentioned in Wenger (1998), but be-

15

came more widespread with the publication of the research agenda ‘Learn-

ing for a small planet’ (Wenger, 2004). The decline in the number of men-

tions of CoPs from 2010 and onwards could indicate that the popularity of

the theory maybe has started to ‘wear out’, but it is also interesting, as

there have been a number of discussions (and critiques) of the notion of

community. For one thing the notion of ‘community’ (not necessarily com-

munity of practice) has been critiqued to ignore the darker sides of hierar-

chy, oppression or ‘the tyranny of participation’ (Fox, 2005; Roberts,

2006; Ferreday & Hodgson, 2008) and also there have been discussions of

communities versus networks and what the ideas of community might

overlook (e.g. the strength of weak ties - Granovetter, 1973) (Wenger,

Trayner & De Laat, 2011; De Laat, Schreurs & Nijland, 2014; Vrieling,

Van den Beemt & De Laat, 2016). Thus, the notion of community has al-

ways played the role of both an ideal, as well as a contentious, problematic

notion within networked learning and this double role might also be an ex-

planation of why it has held such a strong role as a topic of discussion. It is

also well worth noting that the interest in ‘communities’ within networked

learning preceded the popularity of Communities of Practice as a distinct

concept. The interest in community oriented and collaborative forms of

learning has always been strong within networked learning; in fact it is

probably because the notion of Communities of Practice resonate well with

the foundational ideas of Networked Learning that is has become so perva-

sive.

For the other theories we have highlighted the trends are less pronounced.

This might have to do with the semantic difficulties of capturing those

16

frameworks, whereas ‘Communities of Practice’ is a more easily encapsu-

lated concept, activity theory and actor-network-theory could equally be

referred to by many other names as stated earlier. However, from the

graphs it seems that activity theory was more popular 2004-2006 and then

has gradually diminished to have a bit of a renaissance in 2016. In relation

to this it is interesting to see the interest in actor-network-theory gradually

gaining traction from particular 2008 to peak in 2014. In 2014 it seems to

have displaced activity theory - experiencing a surge in 2014, where actor-

network-theory is peaking and an inverse relationship in 2016 where there

is an almost equal amount of interest. We should, however, as previously

written be careful in granting too much explanatory power to the graphs or

deduce larger trends.

It does seem fair, though, to state that networked learning seems over-

whelmingly underpinned by theories that take a broader social, cultural

and relational view of learning, rather than for instance a more specific

cognitive or neural perspective. Again, this is not entirely surprising and is

also well-established in the networked learning literature - particularly this

has also been argued in the book series, that summarises general trends in

the area of networked learning.

Methods

Apart from querying into the theoretical underpinnings, we found that it

would be relevant and interesting to look further into methods and method-

ologies adopted within networked learning. We initially queried into the

broad distinction between ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ and incorporated

also the more recently popularised idea of ‘mixed-method’ (see figure 5)

17

Figure 5: Overarching research orientations within networked learning

Figure 5 clearly illustrates that networked learning is a field leaning more

towards qualitative methods than quantitative. From our experience with

the conference and reading through many papers, this did not come as a

surprise to us, though it is a bit surprising to see that between 2002-2008

there - apparently - was more quantitative work present, but that its volume

seems to have diminished somewhat since then. Interestingly, mixed-meth-

ods, which seems to have become a very popular approach within many ar-

eas of research, had in the past few years an early start in the networked

learning community and seems to live a quiet, but stable live outside the

spotlight of hundreds of mentions. However, we should again be careful

attributing too much explanatory power to the graphs, even one paper dis-

cussing quantitative vs qualitative and mentioning these concepts often

could contribute heavily to a peak.

18

Adding more detail to the very broad query into methods, we decided to be

more specific and query into terms such as: Interview, Survey, Observa-

tion, Discourse Analysis, Social Network Analysis and Data Mining (Fig-

ure 6) as well as Phenomenography, Ethnography, Design Based Research,

and Grounded Theory (figure 7).

Figure 6: Data collection methods used in Networked Learning

Figure 6 more or less confirms the overall impression of networked learn-

ing leaning more towards the qualitative side. Interviews are by far the

most mentioned method, followed by survey and observation (noting that

observation could also occur as a regular word not affiliated with the

method observation, just as one can make a survey of the literature).

Somewhat surprisingly discourse analysis is quite rare. We had expected

this would be a more prominent method, as often authors have analysed fo-

rum interactions or policy texts from a critical perspective. In this vein, it

19

could be interesting in a future analysis to identify the types of qualitative

textual analysis networked learning researchers engage in.

From figure 5 we can further see that from 2004 social network analysis is

beginning to take a place as a method that is adopted within networked

learning research, whereas data mining remains a method rarely adopted or

mentioned (though it should be mentioned that some forms of social net-

work analysis rely on data mining).

Figure 7: Qualitative methodologies in Networked Learning

In figure 7, which can be seen as an extension of the previous figure (5) we

can see how qualitatively oriented methodologies hold a central place in

20

networked learning research (although many forms of phenomenography

and early grounded theory also entails quantitative aspects). Ethnography,

often associated with observation and interviews, holds a stable - yet mod-

est - place, whereas both grounded theory and phenomenography are more

common. This most probably has to do with the nature of networked learn-

ing, as much networked learning occurs online making it more amenable

to textual analysis of interviews, forum transcripts and so forth than per-

haps sustained observations in the ‘field’ (though online ethnography or

multi-sited ethnography is a blooming field within online educational re-

search more broadly speaking). From the graphs one can see that both phe-

nomenography and grounded theory have been gaining traction over the

years (though mentions of grounded theory seem to be waning), and a pe-

culiar observation is that there seems to be a strange inverted relationship

between phenomenography and grounded theory. For example in 2010

mentions of grounded theory peaks, whereas phenomenography is absent

and the inverse for 2012 where phenomenography peaks and the mentions

of grounded theory plummet (and a somewhat similar pattern on a smaller

scale can be seen in 2004 & 2006). Finally, we can see how the concept of

Design Based Research seems to be on the rise since 2004 - a methodology

that also seems to be gaining more attention within educational research at

large.

In summary, it is notable that networked learning research leans broadly

towards qualitative research, yet also including surveys, social network

analysis and phenomenography and grounded theory, that in some inter-

pretations include aspects of quantitative methods. Equally it is worth not-

ing that approaches such as data mining seem to be completely absent

21

from networked learning research, which in many ways is not surprising,

but perhaps worth reflecting on whether there is a need to pay more atten-

tion to such fields and methods, as much attention now seems to be di-

rected towards ‘big data’, ‘analytics’, ‘algorithms’ and so forth.

Networked Learning Delivery modes

In this section on Networked Learning Delivery modes we look into three

different dimensions moving from the more general modes of delivery

(e.g. online, f2f) to more specific technological learning environments and

social media infrastructures.

In figure 8 we have queried into different overarching modes of delivery

i.e. F2F, distance, online, blended, hybrid, and open. It should be noted

that several of these are difficult to assess, as words such as online, dis-

tance, and open could equally refer to ordinary usage of the words, rather

than delivery modes per se.

22

Figure 8: Delivery modes for networked learning

From figure 8 it seems that there is little work referring to F2F (face-2-

face) work, which is perhaps not surprising, considering that networked

learning traditionally has been strongly associated with various form of

‘online’ or ‘distance’ learning - two concepts that also feature more promi-

nently in the graphs. However, a caveat here could be the potentially many

ways of expressing face-to-face in terms of variations of spelling or ex-

pressing ‘physical’ formats in education. Having said that, it is noteworthy

that there are quite a few occurrences of blended-learning, which can entail

a mixture of online and face-to-face, and the same for ‘hybrid’ (though

both of these terms have many meanings).

In the past few conferences, it has become apparent that there is now a

greater interest in delivery modes that are not only online, such as

23

blended/hybrid or understanding how students and teachers use educa-

tional technologies as part of on-campus teaching. Here it is particularly

worth noting how ‘place’ and ‘mobility’ has entered as particular fields of

interest (Carvalho, Goodyear & De Laat, 2017; Gourlay & Oliver, 2017;

Gallagher, Lamb & Bayne, 2017) in contrast to students sitting at home

participating in online conferences via a desktop computer (Goodyear,

Carvalho & Dohn, 2016):

At the risk of over-simplifying, one might say that people involved in net-

worked learning were generally assumed to be experiencing remote inter-

action with others: while sitting down, using a desktop computer or termi-

nal; [...] Twenty years later, changes in technology, media habits and

expectations mean that this sedentary, exotic, keyboard-tethered image of

networked learning is no longer tenable. Mobile, personal, voice-enabled

multifunctional devices such as laptops, tablets and smartphones have

made it possible to participate in networked learning 24/7 from almost any

location, including in workplaces, the home, the bus and the street. (Good-

year, Carvalho & Dohn, pp. 97-98)

We return to these issues in the final discussion in this book as these

changes also have an impact on how we can understand the notions of

‘network’ in networked learning.

A final remark in relation to Figure 8, is the increasing interest in the no-

tion of ‘open’ which is now nearing occurrences of the even more generic

24

term ‘online’. This could for one thing be associated with Massive Open

Online Courses (MOOCs), but more widely probably also reflects an inter-

est in ‘open’ as ‘open educational resources’ and increasing interest in

moving courses beyond the confines of a singular university module or

course.

Learning Environments:

In terms of learning environments (see figure 9) we have queried it into

four quite broad categories: Learning management system / virtual learn-

ing environment (LMS/VLE), MOOCs, Virtual Worlds, Clouds. Apart

from LMS/VLE there are few occurrences of any of these words prior to

2008, which might not be very surprising in terms of concepts such as

MOOCs and Cloud are terms that have only surfaced or become more

widely popular around 2008-2010. Virtual Worlds (second life) seem to

have been represented in the Networked Learning field only very margin-

ally and with few occurrences over the years - it really shows no clear

trend that was taken up in this research community. To the contrary the

terms LMS/VLEs (i.e. Blackboard, Firstclass, WebCT, Moodle, Fronter)

began an upwards trend after 2000, to peak around 2008, and then start to

decline somewhat rapidly in the years following.

25

Figure 9: Learning environments featuring networked learning research

Most noticeably, is obviously the appearance of MOOCs that seem to fol-

low a wider cultural trend of becoming excessively popular after 2012 fol-

lowing the rise of platforms such as Coursera, EdX and the whole MOOC-

craze taking off at that time - but it should be noted that the earlier

MOOCs (e.g. developed by Siemens and Downes) also received some at-

tention in the Networked Learning Conference around 2010. It is, how-

ever, quite striking with this explosive interest in MOOCs happening be-

tween 2012 & 2014 showing a steep rise in mentions from around 25 to

450 (a graph that we could perhaps dub the ‘Nessie graph’ as it looks a bit

like the ‘Loch Ness monster’ rearing its head). Whether MOOCs become a

‘Loch Ness monster’ lurking in the deep waters of Higher Education re-

mains to be seen. On the one hand MOOCs have been subject to criticism,

26

on the other hand MOOCs are globally seen as a pathway for higher edu-

cation institutes to offer courses online to attract students in the global

higher education marketplace. The interest in MOOCs reflects of course

the wider cultural and political interest in the MOOC-phenomenon. How-

ever, since the Networked Learning Community often praises itself for its

critical and distanced stance to ‘boosterism’ and technological determin-

ism (Jones, 2015), it would be interesting to dive deeper into an analysis of

how the MOOC phenomenon was addressed in the papers from the 2014-

2016 conferences.

To understand what might be the more concrete technologies that are

adopted for learning we queried into some more generic types of tools (fo-

rum, blog, wiki), as well as particular services (Facebook, Twitter and

YouTube).

27

Figure 10: Tools and social media use within networked learning

From this graph (figure 10) we can see that ‘forums’ were of increasing in-

terest from 1998 until around 2008 where the use of the term ‘forum’ starts

to decline. The interests in forums are hardly surprising for a field particu-

larly interested in dialogue and collaboration as ‘forums’ were one of the

dominant ‘technologies’ to support asynchronous dialogue at the time.

This is also reflected in a steeply growing interest in blogs and wikis, that

were often portrayed as some of the paradigmatic ‘web 2.0 technologies’

(Dohn, 2009) within education; and it also follows the general interest in

web 2.0 that started to take off around 2004-2005. What is interesting to

see is how these terms also seem to be wearing off and be replaced by an

interest in social networking sites and services such as Twitter & Face-

book, and to a much lesser degree, Youtube. In relation to YouTube, it is

somewhat puzzling that a platform, which is so pervasive in the broader

28

cultural landscape, seems to hold such a little space within Networked

Learning

Technological infrastructure:

Regarding the use of technological devices and infrastructure by learners

we were interested in querying into broad categories such as ‘computer’,

‘mobile’, ‘laptop’, ‘phone’ and ‘tablet’ to see if there were any trends that

might be interesting (see figure 11). In relation to this, and which is per-

haps not surprising is that the term ‘computer’ is slowly declining, whereas

terms such as phone, tablets and laptop were on the rise, but most noticea-

bly the word ‘mobile’ shows a clear upward trend since 2006 and exceed-

ing ‘computer’ around 2014. This change follows the more general trend

where over time we have become more specific about the type of computer

technologies we are using.

29

Figure 11: Technological devices used for networked learning

Rounding off

Celebrating the tenth anniversary of networked learning conferences cov-

ering a period of almost 20 years of research in the area is a great oppor-

tunity to reflect and look back. Some clear patterns have emerged and alt-

hough not always that surprising it provides a good summary of what

happened over the years and where the focus of attention has been. What

seems evident is that the field of Networked Learning is strongly linked to

research within higher education, but equally professional development

and lifelong learning are areas of interest. However, it is worth mentioning

that there have certainly been numerous papers addressing also other con-

texts e.g. informal learning, upper secondary schools, museums. We be-

lieve that the field should always be open and inviting to papers and

thoughts that do not necessarily emanate from studies in a higher education

30

context provided they contribute to advancing and developing our under-

standing of networked learning.

From a theoretical perspective it seems clear that networked learning is

strongly associated with theories that emphasise social, relational and cul-

tural aspects of learning, be they ANT, Activity Theory, Communities of

Practice, socio-material, social constructionist or constructivist perspec-

tives. It is a field interested in community oriented and collaborative forms

of learning, but equally social learning in more loosely tied, diverse, com-

plex networks increasingly exploring movements across online and ‘physi-

cal’ places. Methodologically, it leans strongly towards qualitative meth-

ods, but with noticeable interest in quantitative methods as well or

methodologies involving aspects of quantification (social network analy-

sis, grounded theory). It is a field that – being interested in digital technol-

ogies – also reroutes its interest or object of study as the technological

landscapes and trends change. For example following the wider political

and cultural interest in MOOCs, but also we see how there seems to be

shift in focus from the VLE/LMS towards social media, such as Twitter

and Facebook – or from institutional technologies to technologies and ser-

vices that reside outside the technological infrastructures of Higher Educa-

tion institutions.

In relation to this, it is also interesting to note that we might be experienc-

ing a growing interest in forms of learning that are social in a different way

than suggested by collaborative learning, communities or Communities of

Practice.

31

The next ‘wave’ in educational technology and networked learning re-

search might involve a growing interest in the importance of being net-

worked in the sense of personal, social networks in a global learning land-

scape, where the core is not necessarily learning communities and group

learning, but rather a greater attention to the degrees of freedom and choice

that social networks and learning relationships provide – as well as the

challenges of such personalised, social networks to central networked

learning values such as community and collaboration. In this light social

theories of learning, social network analysis and actor network theory may

be used to understand the socio-material relationships that shape our learn-

ing and where (if it all still relevant) this learning takes place. Through

their connectivity and use of mobile devices learners become even more

aware that they are learning all the time, and that they through their contri-

butions are not only consumers of knowledge but indeed creators of

knowledge. Using Twitter, Facebook and other social media, a lot of our

learning takes place in the ‘wild’ and therefore increasingly outside of tra-

ditional educational institutions. In this regard phenomena such as MOOCs

- or more importantly – being able to connect with learners on a global

scale can be seen as truly disruptive and something that will fuel future

discussions within the networked learning research community. However,

it is also clear that this ‘global wild’ is not necessarily a ‘democratic’ uto-

pian realisation of the ‘global village’, but equally a ‘wild’ that is heavily

guided by commercial platforms driven mainly by the desire for profit. In

this ‘wild’ it will be increasingly important for the networked learning re-

search community to critically ask: what should be the role of dialogue,

community and collaboration and how we can sustain and promote central

values such as widening access to education, and supporting democratic

32

processes, diversity and inclusion. These are questions that were founda-

tional in the establishing of the networked learning research community

and are equally valid – if not more important – in the years to come.

References:

Banks, S., Graebner, C. and McConnell, D. (Eds.). (1998). Networked Lifelong Learning :

Innovative Approaches to Education and Training Through the Internet. Proceedings of

the International Conference, University of Sheffield, April 1998. DACE, University of

Sheffield.

Bayne, S. (2015). What’s the matter with “technology-enhanced learning”? Learning, Me-

dia and Technology, 40(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.915851

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review

of the evidence. British journal of educational technology, 39(5), 775-786.

Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P., & de Laat, M. (2016). Place, Space and Networked Learning.

In L. Carvalho, P. Goodyear & M. de Laat (Eds.), Place-based spaces for networked

learning (1-10). Sydney: Routledge.

33

De Laat, M., Schreurs, B., & Nijland, F. (2014). Communities of practice and Value Crea-

tion in networks. In. R.F. Poell, T. Rocco, & G. Roth. (Eds.). The Routledge Companion

to Human Resource Development (pp. 249-257). New York: Routledge.

Dohn, N. B. (2009). Web 2.0-Mediated Competence--Implicit Educational Demands on

Learners. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(2), 111-118.

Hayes, S. (2016). Learning from a Deceptively Spacious Policy Discourse. In T. Ryberg, C.

Sinclair, S. Bayne, & M. de Laat (Eds.), Research, Boundaries, and Policy in Networked

Learning (pp. 23–40). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-

319-31130-2_2

Jones, C., Asensio, M., Goodyear, G., Hodgson, V., & Steeples, C. (2001) Final Report on

the Field Studies. Networked Learning in Higher Education Project (JISC/CALT). Lan-

caster: CSALT (The Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technologies), Lancaster

University.

Jones, C. (2015). Networked Learning - An Educational Paradigm for the Age of Digital

Networks. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Fox, S. (2005). An actor‐network critique of community in higher education: implications

for networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 95-110.

Gallagher, M. S., Lamb, J., & Bayne, S. (2016). The sonic spaces of online, distance learn-

ers. Place-based Spaces for Networked Learning. In L. Carvalho, P. Goodyear & M. de

Laat (Eds.), Place-based spaces for networked learning (87-99). Sydney: Routledge.

34

Goodyear, P. (2002). Psychological foundations for networked learning. Networked learn-

ing: Perspectives and issues, 49-75.

Goodyear, P., Banks, S, Hodgson, V., & McConnell D. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in Re-

search on Networked Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., & De Laat, M. (Eds.). Place-based spaces for networked learn-

ing. London: Routledge, 2016.

Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., & Dohn, N. B. (2016). Artefacts and Activities in the Analysis

of Learning Networks. In T. Ryberg, C. Sinclair, S. Bayne, & M. de Laat (Eds.), Re-

search, Boundaries, and Policy in Networked Learning (pp. 93–110). Springer Interna-

tional Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31130-2_6

Gourlay, L., & Oliver, M. (2017). Students’ physical and digital sites of study: making,

marking and breaking boundaries. In L. Carvalho, P. Goodyear & M. de Laat (Eds.),

Place-based spaces for networked learning (73-89). Sydney: Routledge.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 78(6),

1360-1380.

Hodgson, V., Laat, M. de, McConnell, D., & Ryberg, T. (Eds.). (2014). The design, experi-

ence and practice of networked learning. New York: Springer.

35

Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. L. (2008). First year

students' experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?. Australasian

journal of educational technology, 24(1).

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of management studies,

43(3), 623-639.

Ryberg, T., Sinclair, C., Bayne, S., & de Laat, M. (Eds.). (2016). Research, boundaries, and

policy in networked learning. [S.l.]: Springer.

Vrieling, E., Van den Beemt, A., & De Laat, M.F. (2016). What’s in a Name: Dimensions

of social Learning in Teacher Groups. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,

22(3), 273-292.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice - Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2004). Learning for a small planet - a research agenda. Retrieved from

http://learninghistories.net/documents/learning%20for%20a%20small%20planet.pdfWe

nger, E., Trayner, B., & De Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in

communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Heerlen: Ruud de Moor Centrum.